Ocean News

More wishful thinking from the Ostrich Man.

 

What part do you claim as a my wishing for something?
I don't wish you miserable, I only observe and pity you, but not enough to give in to your irrational demands!
My wife does say the final quote, but it is a joke between us. We are very happy together, for 17 years, and going, going, going.

 

The coral is sensitive to temperature change and upchucks the algae so turns white. bleaches. The article I posted I don't recall reading they said anything about coral being sensitive to 0.1 change in ph. That is what NOAA said is the result of human industrialization over past two hundred years worth of change in ph.

I'll go back and find my post, edit this and put it here. Okay, as promised.

Ocean acidification | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification
In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to human actions. During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units.

What is coral bleaching? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html
Warmer water temperatures can result in coral bleaching. When water is too warm, corals will expel the algae (zooxanthellae) living in their tissues causing the coral to turn completely white. This is called coral bleaching. When a coral bleaches, it is not dead. Corals can survive a bleaching event, but they are under more stress and are subject to mortality.

In 2005, the U.S. lost half of its coral reefs in the Caribbean in one year due to a massive bleaching event. The warm waters centered around the northern Antilles near the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico expanded southward. Comparison of satellite data from the previous 20 years confirmed that thermal stress from the 2005 event was greater than the previous 20 years combined.

Not all bleaching events are due to warm water.

In January 2010, cold water temperatures in the Florida Keys caused a coral bleaching event that resulted in some coral death. Water temperatures dropped 12.06 degrees Fahrenheit lower than the typical temperatures observed at this time of year. Researchers will evaluate if this cold-stress event will make corals more susceptible to disease in the same way that warmer waters impact corals."

Odd! No mention of ph?

Let's do some interpolation.

0.1 change in ph over 200 years+ = -/+ 0.0005 ph change annually.
Eighty years remain until 2100. if the rate of change is constant, the alkalinity will reduce a further 0.04 ph by end of this century.
How much reduction in ph change have you set as a goal?
How much ph change can coral tolerate? How rapid a change can coral adapt to?
According to your hypothesis, none!
Was coral at risk throughout recent 200 years? Or just recently?
Questions for science.
Leave hyperbole to politicians and news vendors.

 

Your wishful thinking is that AGW is either nonexistent or inconsequential, so therefore it is perfectly justified to "eat, drink, and be merry." My paraphrase...

I think SamSam's post catches you in a number of its quadrants.

 

I agree with your assessment and congratulate you for understanding I think human's minute percent of CO2 contribution is incapable of causing climate change.

Samsam's post? I only pay attention to articles posted, not the rock throwing.
Yours and others insults don't sting. I only need to consider the source.
You folks think anybody who doesn't think like you is stupid.
You underestimate your opponents by magnitudes! Arrogant and not very smart, underestimating your opponent !
Here is your banana.

As to eat, drink, and be merry, I worked more than half a century and earned my relaxation.
We still have work to do, problems to solve, and attention diverted to your imagined problems derails progress on important issues!

 

Your post here first confounded the idea that ocean acidification causes coral bleaching.

SamSam's post said, and my subsequent posts confirmed, that the scientific consensus is that ocean acidification will result in great stress to corals.

Who said anything about constant? More wishful thinking on your part.

The predicted pH decrease of approximately 0.3 units during the 21st century would be a greater change than possibly at any time in the last 300 million years.​

 

Great idea! That would eliminate 95% of your posts. <laugh>

 

Please don't blame me! No one has forced you to post on this thread. You are here totally voluntarily. Be responsible for your own life -- don't blame others for your failings.

 

I blame warmist AGW alarmists for bilking trillions of dollars around the world, monies much more desperately needed and better spent on more urgent problems.
You are one of those alarmists.
I haven't failed, still fighting, optimistic your fake calamities will soon be recognized as mass hysteria!

"Ti-yi-aye-yime is on our side, Yes it is! Time, time, time, is on my side! Yes, it is!"

A cold 2030 creeping up on you!

Scientists predict 'mini ice age' by 2030 - Unexplained Mysteries https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/314413/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-by-2030

Voluntarily? What? No more shill checks from the petroleum lobby? Now i'm mad!

Earth set to enter 30-year 'miniature ice age'

Posted on Thursday, 6 February, 2020
"Scientists have warned that a long period of particularly low solar activity could lead to much colder winters.
In news that would seem to be in complete contradiction to global warming predictions, scientists are now claiming that the next 30 years could actually bring an extended spell of abnormally cold weather.

While a solar minimum will typically occur every 11 years, this year we will see the beginning of a grand solar minimum - an extended period of diminished solar activity lasting three decades.

Such periods only occur once every 400 years; the last time it happened was from 1645 to 1715 when the Maunder Minimum brought such cold winters that the River Thames literally froze over."
Earth set to enter 30-year 'miniature ice age' - Unexplained Mysteries https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/334366/earth-set-to-enter-30-year-miniature-ice-age

 

There's a bit of a paradox. An article about a future event, that hasn't happened yet, by a site called unexplained mysteries. What is the mystery? Is it that this event will happen, that we can accurately predict it will happen or that we believe we can accurately predict what will happen?

I don't know why you all are giving Yobarnacle such a hard time. I agree with what he's actually trying to say. Not the anti-AGW stuff. I've explained my belief in anthropogenic climate change already. What I agree with is his resistance to the hyperbole and predictions of global armageddon.

I agree with his sentiment that much of the noise around the emergency is motivated by other sentiments besides genuine concern. I agree that many people jump on a band wagon and stop listening critically to what is being said while they repeat the slogans over and over as though the ideas they are promoting should be self- evident and everyone, if they just open their eyes, could see the clear truth of it.

The fact is, very few of us who embrace these causes actually know anything. It's a matter of faith. We align ourselves with one group or another because we like what they are saying, not because we know they speak the truth.

Take IN's statement here. This seems like a persuasive ideal except it could have been said about anything. "If you really were concerned, you'ld believe what I believe." This is just a slogan that wins political office. It's an appeal to emotion while also an ad hominem attack on the non- believer.

You remember Al Gore and his carbon indulgences? He was the vice president in 1993. This debate, this particular one, has been raging for almost 30 years. How high are the oceans suppose to be by now?

15 years ago, a report on NH Public Radio said we'd no longer have maple trees to tap in NH by now. Maple trees would only be found North of the Canadian border.

I remember reading about predictions of drought that would cause mass migrations of people, dying crops, large scale loss of jobs.

In the 90's sea turtles were going to be extinct by now. In high school, I was told we were cutting down our rain forests at a rate of a football field every two seconds. I heard it again, 20 years later and more recently again. Are we not getting any more efficient at cutting down trees? A math professor and I did a little casual math and calculated that it would take 500 years, at that rate, to run out of rain forest. We decided that we would have developed inter stellar space travel by then and could simply move on to another planet or we could say to the replicator, "a dozen kapok trees and two dozen mahogany trees, please".

I recently read that if Antarctica melts, the sea level will raise 57 feet. I didn't believe that. The surface of the Earth is much bigger than that, so I actually looked into it. I found out what the surface area of Earth's ocean's is (note: I did not measure it myself, I took some published numbers and decided to have faith). Then, I looked up the square miles of Antarctica and the average ice thickness and I did the math and came up with 53' sea level rise. Close enough, except...

In researching Antarctica, I also read about a large region where the ice is over two miles thick but the bedrock is almost three miles below sea level. The surface ice is actually in a valley that is lower than the surface of the ocean.

We would also have to conclude that a significant portion of the area initially reported as part of Antarctica is the border of ice around the edges where only the top of the ice column is above sea level. Unlike the Arctic where a submarine can often pass below the ice sheet, Antarctica is not floating ice, but neither is it all above sealevel. Therefore, the publicly reported alarms about 50+feet of ocean rise are greatly exaggerated and poorly performed science.

You all know the story of Galileo and the Leaning Tower of Piza? The way I heard it was that he asserted that two objects of different weights would fall at the same rate when conventional science said no, the heavier object would hit first. Galileo performed the experiment to compare the conventional science, which predicted the ball that was twice as heavy, would take half the time to reach the ground. When he finished the experiment, indeed, the heavier ball hit the ground first, but only by an inch or so difference. He was therefore scoffed at and the tradition mired scientists felt vindicated.

Galileo said something to the effect that, "for an inch, all of science was happy to ignore a new truth."

So, do as @Yobarnacle is suggesting, and exercise some true skepticism. It can only lead to greater self-assuredness or at least the awareness that we can't know if we are improving the planet for our needs or making it worse or completely at the mercy of cosmic events that started way before man ever showed up.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Thanks Will

 

Agree.

Agree. Yob is totally off regarding AGW.

Partially agree. There are plenty of people who espouse a cause but who don't actually study it in detail. Plenty of journalists who write hair-on-fire articles that go way beyond the science. However, I try to only post articles that are backed by scientific studies. I've found that scientists are generally pretty conservative. Generally, what they "predict" turns out to be pretty close to what actually happens, or even that what actually happens is more severe than what they predict.

In the context of what we were talking about I make no apologies for that statement.

Strongly disagree.

Now you're the one pulling fanciful numbers out of your keister. Do you really think that highly trained scientists don't take into consideration all the factors you've mention, plus a lot more you've never thought about. I have the same complaint about Yob's typical line of reasoning.

Nobody is predicting the melting of ALL of the ice in Antarctica. It would take a thousand years to do so. BUT IF IT DID it would raise the sea level 200' (60m).

Quick Facts on Ice Sheets | National Snow and Ice Data Center

Ice sheets contain enormous quantities of frozen water. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet).​

Citation please. I fear you are falling into one of Yob's traps, of working from faulty memory rather than taking the time to get your story correct.

Yob certainly has skepticism, but he's wrong so often that I think it's laughable that it should be called "true skepticism".

 

Wrong from YOUR POV, doesn't mean wrong!
Although the web page I posted from may not meet with your approval, we are indeed entering one of those rare 400 year solar minimums AND the earth is farther out in our orbit, a natural cycle, than normally, and the North Atlantic Gyre appears to be slowing. Cold on top of cold on top of cold!

My caution to you, it's going to be significantly colder by 2030 wasn't plucked from thin air.

Start cutting wood now. The energy companies are going to sock it to you on the price of heat, in revenge for the troubles you have caused them.
You have had your hysterical run, now your comeuppance is coming, time to pay the piper! And you will pay and pay! Or freeze!
Time is on our side, so we play a delaying game to run the clock out.

We don't have to beat you, just resist until your house of cards collapses!
You failed to engineer your house of cards for a heavy snow load!

2030 is coming!

 

You should be proud of me. I'm skeptical that your garbled story is TOTALLY correct. Two points:

1) Neglecting air resistance, the two balls will hit at the same time, not one inch different.

2) Many scholars think Galileo didn't actually do a physical experiment, but rather did a thought experiment, by which he arrived at the correct conclusion.

Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment

At the time when Viviani asserts that the experiment took place, Galileo had not yet formulated the final version of his law of free fall. He had, however, formulated an earlier version which predicted that bodies of the same material falling through the same medium would fall at the same speed.[3]:20 This was contrary to what Aristotle had taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to their weight.[3]:9[7] While this story has been retold in popular accounts, there is no account by Galileo himself of such an experiment, and it is accepted by most historians that it was a thought experiment which did not actually take place.[8][9] An exception is Stillman Drake, who argues that it took place, more or less as Viviani described it, as a demonstration for students.[3]:19–21, 414–416

Galileo set out his ideas about falling bodies, and about projectiles in general, in his book Two New Sciences. The two sciences were the science of motion, which became the foundation-stone of physics, and the science of materials and construction, an important contribution to engineering. Galileo arrived at his hypothesis by a famous thought experiment outlined in his book On Motion.[10] This experiment runs as follows: Imagine two objects, one light and one heavier than the other one, are connected to each other by a string. Drop this system of objects from the top of a tower. If we assume heavier objects do indeed fall faster than lighter ones (and conversely, lighter objects fall slower), the string will soon pull taut as the lighter object retards the fall of the heavier object. But the system considered as a whole is heavier than the heavy object alone, and therefore should fall faster. This contradiction leads one to conclude the assumption is false.​

 

Bjorn Lomborg is an economist who is known for his views that, although AGW is real, economically it doesn't makes sense to get all excited about it. He has written a book explaining his views.

FALSE ALARM
How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, has written a book review:

Are We Overreacting on Climate Change?

L = Bjorn Lomborg
S = Joe Stiglitz

L) Promotes a carbon tax and investing much more on innovation
S) Carbon price he suggests is far too low. The model L relies on shows that we’ve invested all we wisely can in innovation. L exhibits a naïve belief that markets work well — ignoring a half-century of research into market failures that says otherwise.

L) Economic cost to limiting climate change to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels would be very high.
S) The High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, supported by the World Bank, concluded that those goals could be achieved at a moderate price.

L) Estimates the damage associated with climate change to be minor.
S) L neglects to include increasing acidification, rising sea levels and extreme weather events in his calculations. L also underestimates risk. Climate change models use the “best estimate” of impacts, but as we learn more about climate change these best estimates keep getting revised, and, typically, in only one direction — more damage and sooner than had been expected.

L) Apparently agrees with the Trump administration's use of a 7 percent discount rate — which means that we shouldn’t spend more than 3 cents today to avoid a dollar of damage to our children in 50 years.
S) This is ethically indefensible and economically nonsensical.

L) Supports the Copenhagen Consensus which supports a do-nothing agenda, and which L claims to be the reasonable scientific approach.
S) The “experts” in the Copenhagen Consensus are all distinguished economists, but most with a conservative bent, and does not include any of the true experts in climate science who might have raised objections.

L) Climate change is not the only problem the world faces and therefore not much attention should be given it.
S) L poses a false choice, because it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

S) In conclusion: This book proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous. It’s nominally about air pollution. It’s really about mind pollution.

[IMHO this also applies to much of what Yob posts]